KARNI MANSION PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), JAMSHEDPUR
Facts
The assessee, engaged in real estate, filed a nil return for AY 2012-13. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, and income was assessed at Rs. 1,67,15,140/-, including additions for bogus share capital, unexplained investment in property, and unexplained source of income. The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal of the assessee's appeal was made without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. For the sake of justice and fair play, the entire issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also directed to comply with future notices.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution, without providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RANCHI BENCH”, RANCHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI BENCH”, RANCHI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 344/RAN/2024 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Karni Mansion Pvt. Ltd., 33, Munshi Sadaruddin Lane, Burrabazar, Kolkata - 700007 [PAN: AAECK0204D] ..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer-, Ward 1(4), Jamshedpur, 47, C.H. Area, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand - 831001 ..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Rinku Singh, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 15.09.2025 O R D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal arises from order dated 31.05.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is being engaged in the business of real estate and filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. ‘Nil’. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly assessment was completed on 30.03.2015 accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. However, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by notice issued under the appropriate provision of the Act. The case of the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by assessing the income at Rs.
2 ITA No. 344/RAN/2024 Karmi Mansion Pvt. Ltd. 1,67,15,140/- by made an addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/-, Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 12,15,139/- on account of bogus share capital, unexplained investment in purchase of property and unexplained source of income respectively.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non- prosecution by upholding the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be quashed.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR stated that the ample opportunities were given to the assessee but the assessee has failed to comply to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, appeal of the assessee was rightly dismissed. He, therefore, prayed before the bench that appeal of the assessee may be dismissed in limine due to the above reason itself.
We after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record. We find that in the present case of the assessee, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is exparte order since the assessee did not turn up properly before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, interest of justice and fair play, it is necessary to remand back the whole issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is also directed to comply to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) without any fail.
In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
3 ITA No. 344/RAN/2024 Karmi Mansion Pvt. Ltd. Order pronounced on 15.09.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sonjoy Sarma) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 15.09.2025 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)
//True copy// By order
Sr. Private Secretary, Ranchi Bench
